u/NPDogs21

Mostly towards PL. Why should the child, Rumi, in the surrogate case be taken away from the biological parents and renamed Gabriel for requesting abortion but a woman who aborts, maybe even having multiple abortions, be treated differently like its no big deal?

The inconsistency always makes my mind boggle, and I don't get how PL deal with it. If I were PL, I'd say yes. I might even support them changing the kids names if we support calling them baby Gabriel too.

Should the children of a woman who aborts be taken away by the state?

When I was PL, i believed in the idea of "womb to tomb" being against abortion while also supporting the idea of progressive policies. I was also a single issue voter on abortion, which is why I say "the idea" as politically I rejected these progressive policies in favor of being against abortion.

Now, I am not a single issue supporter and am PC. I also cannot move to a side that is not honest, and I regularly have PL tell me things like "PL support everything else you support. We have tons of atheists, leftists, feminists, etc. PL organizations and politicians really dont represent the PL movement." If i cannot acknowledge that yes, actually the speakers at the March for Life, including the Vice President, do represent the PL movement, why should I join a side that cannot be straightforward?

While I don't agree with them, I've found the abortion abolitionist types to be much more honest and direct about the effects of banning abortion and what they support.

Why should I become pro life if I believe in a consistent life ethic and am not a single issue supporter?

For me, it used to be Jan 6 when the "Back the Blue" crowd was okay with their side cheering on Capitol police being attacked and pardoned. Turns out they didnt give an F about the blue when they weren't on their side.

Now, there's so many insane examples for the second Trump administration its hard to choose. Gas prices skyrocketing after saying they'd go down, no new wars, tariffs, the crypto bribe scheme. Too many to count.

For the left, I think the biggest one is support for Ukraine. Russia is clearly the aggressor, and Ukraine is fighting for its survival. I'll hear far left people bring up anti NATO talking points, this isn't our war to fight, its sad how many Russians are dying, and Ukraine should capitulate to Russia to "give peace a try."

Another one is will they vote for the lesser of two evils, even if they may not like Democrats? One red flag is when I hear "They need to earn my vote." I've never actually seen one of them say they voted Democrat. Either they go back to Jill Stein or abstain because "both sides are the same." I dont trust these people when I see the both sidesing.

What are your political litmus tests for both the right and left?

For me, I would change my position to a more consistent one if I kept running into contradictions.

1.) Abortion is murder. We shouldn't actually treat it like murder though or women fundamentally lack mens rea to ever understand what abortion is.

2.) Personhood is irrelevant and should never be used to separate humans as it has led to atrocities when that happens. Yes, I grant personhood at conception and don't believe all human DNA should be protected, like human skin or hair cells.

3.) PL say we're wrong to lump them together as conservative, anti contraception, anti sex ed, and anti maternity leave. Saying you personally support them while voting against them would be like me saying I'm 100% PL but I will vote against every PL ballot initiative since what matters most is just my personal belief.

PC, what is a contradiction you regularly see with PL?

PL, how do you justify the countless contradictions of the PL position?

Say a woman is traveling out of state to get an abortion since its restricted in Texas. Theres a lot of places there now where its a crime to engage in "abortion trafficking" using the roads to travel there.

Would you support law enforcement using Flock cameras in Texas to track women traveling to get an abortion?

Theres plenty of talk about punishing vs not punishing the woman who gets an abortion. What do PL think should happen to a doctor who's performed an abortion, even hundreds or thousands of them? Loss of license? Life in prison? Death penalty?

I ask this because I see PL constantly praise and forgive these doctors when they become PL activists. Pretty strange reaction to someone that they claim has murdered countless babies.

What should the consequences/punishment be for a doctor who performs a non-medically necessary abortion in a PL world? If they become PL activists, do you believe their past actions should immediately be forgiven?

PL, do you believe PC think all people with disabilities should have been aborted and that we support now killing babies after birth?

PC, do you think all PL are women haters who are just looking for an excuse to oppress women, not that they genuinely believe they're trying to save babies?

Do you believe the caricatures of the other side of the debate?

I am not a single issue voter and never will be. The PL movement consistently backs horrible politicians that cause more harm than good, way more than those caused by abortion.

White Nationalists are welcome, Christian Nationalists are welcome, celebrating. Cutting USAID that will lead to the deaths of millions, many of whom are children, is welcome. Open corruption and demonizing the other side is welcome. Clearly, the movement is saying it's not one that's for me.

Telling me there are non-traditional PL does nothing if they make no impact on the movement. Does SecularProLife regularly call out LiveAction for involving religion with PL? No, which tells me its acceptable. PL speeches are literally opened with a prayer.

Misogyny is openly tolerated, so much where its not surprising hearing some say women shouldn't have the right to vote, that women naturally shoyld want to stay at home and not be in the work force, and they should want to have as many children as possible.

So, if you reject PL being part of the PL movement if they don't accept these things, what is your goal to get non-PL to join your movement? Is it entering through the race, sex, religion or culture war angle and then being PL that way?

What PL and PC arguments do you see that are inconsistent yet are brought up all the time?

For PL, its the claim that abortion is murder yet never actually treated as such. IVF is fine, rape exceptions are common, and there should be no punishment at all towards the woman. Doesn't sound murderous to me.

For PC, specifically abortion legal all throughout pregnancy, its that a doctor refusing to perform an abortion for a healthy pregnancy or refer to one who will is completely unacceptable in the first trimester but fine for the third . I think its because many see abortion at that point as unjustified and shouldn't happen, even if the woman wants it, so its easier to say a doctor just wouldn't perform it. They should then be accused of denying woman healthcare like earlier refusals are, but I never see it.

What is an inconsistency you commonly see on both sides of the debate?

One thing I can't stand is playing the victim, especially when you're the one in power or are the abuser. What is the psychological reason for MAGA constantly acting like the world is out to get them when they're the ones in charge?

I read about the Patriot Front losers in DC, and naturally MAGA was saying it was Feds, it was ANTIFA, the Democrats are the party of the KKK, etc anything but disavow them. If i was MAGA, I'd simply own that I accept or tolerate them in my movement or leave. Boom, done? Why is that impossible for the average MAGA?

I genuinely don't get it. They must see it, right?

This is in response to the common personhood rebuttal.

All humans should get human rights. Size, ability, dependency, location, none of it matters. If you're human, you get human rights.

Logically, this also applies to human skin or hair cells as both are human. If you want to say you have to be a human organism, you're adding a qualifier that you have to be more than simply human.

Why do you say all humans should get human rights but when asked if that includes human hair or skin cells, both human, act like that is absurd?

Does it not get old for you after awhile? If abortion is already justified itself, aborting for a reason like a disability is also justified.

We can also see how people with disabilities are treated by PL after they're born, cutting their healthcare, making access for them harder, and making fun of them.

Do you also oppose telling women who are older they're at a higher risk for having a kid with disabilities so they shouldn't get pregnant, which is a eugenics argument? Would you equally choose to have a child without or with a disability if you're against eugenics?

Personally, I would be more worried if PL believed abortion was murder and that we should do nothing. There seems to be this idea among certain PC of "Don't like X? Don't do X!" We would never apply this logic to other issues like stealing or sexual assault. For some reason though, they believe it works with abortion when I've never seen it change someone's mind.

​

It feels more like just a statement that abortion is objectively correct and not any attempt to persuade PL.

​

Where do you draw the line for intervening with an issue?

Edit: I'm asking what is an issue or line you draw where people shouldn't worry about it? If you say murder is something people should be fine with, what is an issue you believe its actually justified to get involved in?

Edit: everyone is responding why PL dont think abortion is murder or why they're wrong. Thats not the question. It's why use an argument that people shouldn't care about an issue they believe is equivalent to murder? I don't believe they think that, and I also would never say "Don't like X? Don't do X" yet that is a popular PC argument. When would you apply it to another issue?

Saw on another sub how the Handmaid's Tale isn't actually what PL want, with one comment saying there needs to be an actual book written about what a PL society would look like. This comes at a time when you have PL women at a TPUSA event saying women shouldn't have the right to vote, and Christian Nationalists are welcomed with open arms. Are PL activists denouncing it and severing ties with the organization? I wont hold my breath.

​

What do you think about PL utopia would look like?

One of my biggest frustrations with the abortion debate and PL is how they will claim to support or oppose XYZ while voting for PL politicians who do the exact opposite. That is completely meaningless to me then.

​

I have my personal view of abortion, and when I vote for someone, I recognize I'm saying that they're as close to my position as possible in our system. If they happen to go farther in allowing abortion than my stance, then i accept that. I've found PL will act like saying "but I oppose it" negates all their responsibility and support for a candidate, which I don't accept.

​

How do you reconcile your personal view of abortion restrictions with who you vote for?

​

For example, I could say I'm PL tomorrow and accept the responsibility of my decision, which I feel PL would call me wrong. Yes, I voted to restrict abortion. That's great! I also voted for the mistreatment of immigrants, which I accept. I voted for cutting funding for USAID, which will lead to the deaths of millions of people, including children. I accept that the lives saved with abortion are more important to me than those who will die.

​

I feel the closest I've seen with this come from the abortion abolitionist types